Cma Provisions Court S Done Its Part Time For Parliament To Act

---

 


The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) welcomes the Court of Appeal’s landmark ruling in Heidy Quah v Government of Malaysia yesterday.
The appellate court declared the use of Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) to criminalise online expression deemed “offensive” or made with the “intent to annoy” as unconstitutional.
The court affirmed that such vague and subjective provisions are inconsistent with Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, read together with Article 8(1) on equality, respectively, serving as a precedent for all future judgments.
It is critical to note that the court further extrapolated that criminalising “offensive” speech made with the “intent to annoy” under section 233 effectively enables the authorities to censor expression or views disliked by certain groups, in direct contradiction to the CMA’s guarantee under section 3(3) that “nothing in the Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the internet”.
ADSFor too long, these vague and ambiguous provisions have been used to meet political expediency and uphold archaic values that are antithetical to international human rights standards.
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) requires restrictions on speech to meet the three-part test of legality, necessity and proportionality.
This is further affirmed by the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No 34 that freedom of expression includes speech that may be “deeply offensive”.
Therefore, criminalising expression on the grounds that it is “offensive” or “annoying” is incompatible with democratic discourse and undermines the Madani government’s commitments to human rights reform.
The misuse of Section 233 is not theoretical - it has repeatedly been weaponised to suppress criticism, bringing fear to human rights defenders, media and other critics of the prevailing government.
Other cases
Aside from Quah, we have seen Lalitha Kunarathnam summoned by police over her investigative article exposing corruption; activist and satirist Fahmi Reza repeatedly investigated for his political satire; and the “Mentega Terbang” filmmakers targeted for artistic expression.
We also have former Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan and activist lawyer Siti Kasim investigated by the police when they critiqued the government’s investigation into former attorney general Tommy Thomas; and Malaysiakini journalists were summoned in 2024 in a chilling move against media freedom.
These cases, amongst others, illustrate how the law has stifled legitimate expression, created a climate of fear, and obstructed the role of civil society and media in holding power to account.
Activist Fahmi RezaHuman rights defenders like Quah must be allowed to speak without fear of prosecution when representing and bolstering the voices of those who cannot reach the ones in power.
The people must be allowed to speak their minds, critique policies, demand accountability of the State and engage in open dialogue towards effective governance and rule of law without the constant fear of criminal sanctions.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling sets a precedent for a future in which critical discourse and demanding accountability are not treated as threats to public order but as the foundation of a healthy democracy.
ADSWe note that this ruling is in relation to the pre-2025 version of the CMA - before the amendments which resulted in the term “offensive” being substituted with “grossly offensive” and supplemented with additional explanations were gazetted on Feb 7.
Repeal Section 233
Nonetheless, CIJ had argued that the 2025 amendments to Section 233 were equally expansive and vague, and failed to meet the threshold of allowable restrictions of speech and expression.
International law protects any form of expression or speech, even those that are profoundly offensive, shocking, and disturbing. Restrictions that do not meet the three-part test violate the right to freedom of expression.
CIJ reiterates its longstanding call for the repeal of Section 233 of the CMA.
As an immediate step, however, we urge the Communications Ministry and Parliament to give full effect to the Court of Appeal’s ruling by amending Section 233(1), including in interpreting the full spirit and principles of this ruling in relation to the CMA 2025.
There must be a moratorium on the use of Section 233 until the proposed amendment or repeal comes into effect.
Malaysia now has an opportunity to move decisively away from repressive laws which restrict our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and towards a legal framework that protects critical debate and accountability.
The court has done its part; the Parliament must now act. - Mkini
WATHSHLAH G NAIDU is CIJ executive director.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---